DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hellman v. Hellman, 84 N.W.2d 367.

28 citing documents.

  • Marriage of Hecker v. Hecker 568 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1997
  • Marriage of Hecker v. Hecker 568 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1997
    See Hellman v. Hellman, 250 Minn. 422, 426
  • Marriage of Nelsen v. Nelsen 444 N.W.2d 302 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Marriage of Nelsen v. Nelsen 444 N.W.2d 302 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    See Hellman v. Hellman, 250 Minn. 422, 429 , (although a stipulation provided husband was to receive his work tools and equipment, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the stipulation before adopting it as part of the decree to authorize wife to retain the work tools and equipment).
  • Marriage of Karon v. Karon 435 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 1989
  • Marriage of Winter v. Winter 375 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Marriage of Winter v. Winter 375 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See Hellman v. Hellman, 250 Minn. 422, 426 , see also Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 180
  • Marriage of Swanson v. Swanson 372 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Marriage of Swanson v. Swanson 372 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See Hellman v. Hellman, 250 Minn. 422, 426
  • Marriage of Johnson v. Van Zee 370 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Marriage of Johnson v. Van Zee 370 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Hellman v. Hellman, 250 Minn. 422, 426
  • Ramsay v. Ramsay 233 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 1975
  • Ramsay v. Ramsay 233 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 1975
    : “The fact that the financial rights and obligations of the parties have been fixed in the divorce decree as a result of stipulation is an important consideration restraining, although not controlling, the court’s authority.” See, Kate v. Kate, 234 Minn. 402, 408 , Botkin v. Botkin, 247 Minn. 25 , Hellman v. Hellman, 250 Minn. 422 , Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28
  • Anderson v. Anderson 225 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1975
  • Anderson v. Anderson 225 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1975
    LaBelle v. LaBelle, 302 Minn. 98 , Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173 , Hellman v. Hellman, 250 Minn. 422 , Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446
  • Petersen v. Petersen 206 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1973
  • Petersen v. Petersen 206 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1973
    Although considerable weight is given to stipulations intelligently entered with the benefit of counsel, Hellman v. Hellman, 250 Minn. 422, 426 , in determining questions of custody the paramount issue remains the welfare and best interests of the children.
  • Wos v. Wos 191 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 1971
  • Wos v. Wos 191 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 1971
    Hellman v. Hellman, 250 Minn. 422 , Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252 , Swanson v. Swanson, 233 Minn. 354
  • Kaiser v. Kaiser 186 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1971
  • Kaiser v. Kaiser 186 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1971
    As we stated in Hellman v. Hellman, 250 Minn. 422, 426 , 84 N. W. (2d) 367, 371 , and so recently reiterated in Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28 , 182 N. W. (2d) 840 : “Where the divorce decree has adopted a stipulation agreed upon by the parties, such stipulations are purely advisory to the court and do not limit its discretionary power to determine whether a future c
  • Tammen v. Tammen 182 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1970
  • Tammen v. Tammen 182 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1970
    In Hellman v. Hellman, 250 Minn. 422, 426 , 84 N. W. (2d) 367, 371 , we said: “Where the divorce decree has adopted a stipulation agreed upon by the parties, such stipulations are purely advisory to the court and do not limit its discretionary power to determine whether a future change in circumstances warrants revision, but they are entitled to consider
  • Gallivan v. Gallivan 155 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 1967
  • Gallivan v. Gallivan 155 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 1967
    See, also, Hellman v. Hellman, 250 Minn. 422 , 84 N. W. (2d) 367 ; Johnson v. Johnson, 250 Minn. 282 , 84 N. W. (2d) 249 ; Druck v. Druck, 258 Minn. 114 , 103 N. W. (2d) 123 ; Stephenson v. Stephenson, 258 Minn. 435 , 104 N. W. (2d) 517 ; Cloutier v. Cloutier, 261 Minn. 324 , 112 N. W. (2d) 347 .
  • Ruprecht v. Ruprecht 96 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1959
  • Senn v. Senn 95 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1959
  • Senn v. Senn 95 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1959
    Novotny v. Novotny, 152 Minn; 420, ; Menke v. Menke, 213 Minn. 311 , 6 N. W. (2d) 470 ; Kate v. Kate, 234 Minn. 402, 406 , 48 N. W. (2d) 551, 555 ; Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446 , 80 N. W. (2d) 621 ; Hellman v. Hellman, 250 Minn. 422 , 84 N. W. (2d) 367 .